Letter to the editor by Keith McLea GM ACC

[MSTRS:Me]

You've all failed to notice the obvious solution to our problem, suggested by Mr McLea's letter: have motorcyclists pay their increased levies via the earner's levy, just like the cyclists and the rugby players!

Sorted.

But but but...that'd mean a return to one source of levies, one fund for all purposes...good idea.
Too good for them to go for.

[AD345]

See how he's signed this letter. Poor bugger can't work out who he works for (Last week it was ACC Insurance now he's gone back to working for just the ACC).

Hope he can find the right building when he goes to work.

Read here

OPINION: David Flett and Kim Naylor (Letters, Nov 24) suggest some ACC levy payers, mainly motorcyclists, are being singled out for levy increases.

That's not true. ACC proposes increases for almost all levy payers this year. That will include others with high risks, such as cyclists or rugby players, who will pay increased levies through the earners' levy that all workers pay to cover non-work injuries. Mr Flett asks why ACC is increasing levies when it has investment assets of $11 billion. The answer is that these assets are needed to cover ACC's $24b in future liabilities.

ACC uses its investment and levy income not just to cover new claims each year but also to cover the ongoing costs of previous claims. ACC's future liabilities are growing faster every year than its investment assets, meaning increased income also has to come from levies.

ACC is, of course, also trying to control the liability growth.

Kim Naylor suggests levies have reached too high a level. ACC has acknowledged the increases might be unpalatable, especially in the current economic climate. However, we remain convinced that levy increases of this scale are needed to ensure the scheme's sustainability.

KEITH McLEA

General manager, ACC

That was MY letter he was replying to - so I figured it's only fair that I respond to his. So I've sent this:

I note Mr McLea has taken the time to reply to some of the points I raised and I think him for it. As usual, however, the devil lies in the (unsaid) details.
Two of his assertions bear closer examination. The first that motorcyclists are only amongst a raft of levy payers facing increases. The unsaid detail is that only motorcyclists are being faced with increases of over 300% and they are the ONLY levy payers still recommended to have an increase designed to hit the 2014 timeline for full funding. All other payers in the motor vehicles account have had their timeline pushed out to 2019.
The second assertion is that the 11 billion dollar investments only go part way to meeting 24 billion dollars of liability. The unsaid detail is that the liability is only a future PROJECTED liability based on a range of assuptions including an investment return using current recession-hit rates of return. I cannot speak to Mr McLea's pessimism about any economic recovery but the fact remains that the liability could quite easily be less. As a universal publically funded compensation scheme it would seem unlikely that ACC's income stream is going to suddenly dry up.
That only becomes a risk if it was sold to become a private insurance scheme.
Surely not?

David Flett

[Pedrostt500]

Ok I geustimate that my ACC Levies will be $233.97 car, $698.61 1st bike, $476.81 2nd Bike, $1820 earners Levey = $3229.39
I live alone, no dependants, Don't cycle, don't play Rugby, Not a Mountain Climber, so it would be wort it if I got a Refund at the end of the year if I didn't have a ACC Claim of any sort over the year.

[dpex]

Is it not somewhat pitiful that he is reduced to writing a letter to the editor?

That made me laugh. Well spotted Ix.